LOBBY – Islam21chttps://www.islam21c.com
Articulating Islam in the 21st CenturyFri, 10 May 2019 11:54:23 +0000en-GB
hourly
1 147071544The Importance of Boycotts and #CheckTheLabelhttps://www.islam21c.com/campaigns/the-importance-of-boycotts-and-checkthelabel/
https://www.islam21c.com/campaigns/the-importance-of-boycotts-and-checkthelabel/#commentsSun, 28 Apr 2019 06:00:48 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=22081Recently there have been many media stories that may have led you to believe boycotting Israeli goods is illegal. Let us put this matter to rest. The British government has not banned neither is it calling for a ban on the British public to boycott Israel. In other words it is not illegal to boycott Israel. ...

]]>Recently there have been many media stories that may have led you to believe boycotting Israeli goods is illegal. Let us put this matter to rest. The British government has not banned neither is it calling for a ban on the British public to boycott Israel. In other words it is not illegal to boycott Israel.

So what is this talk about boycott? The Conservative government is trying to ban ‘public bodies’, such as city councils and universities, from boycotting products that originate from the West Bank that is occupied by Israel. This attempt by the government to ban city councils from boycotting products of Israeli settlements is not Law and, at present, only a recommendation.

The right to boycott is enshrined in our basic democratic freedom and can be argued as a freedom that marks Britishness. Further to this, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) responded to the procurement ban stating, “the new documents amount to an attempt to intimidate councils and universities but do not appear to introduce new legal obligations on public bodies.” They added, “it remains perfectly legal for councils and universities to take ethical stances that reflect the views of their communities and exclude companies that violate human rights or commit other forms of gross misconduct from tender exercises.”[1]

“The importance of this matter should not need stressing when we consider the vast majority of us consume dates when we break our fasts. Let it not be that we fast throughout the day from that which Allāh has made permissible, yet break our fasts with that which Allāh has made impermissible, i.e. stolen dates.”

The Foreign Minister, while publicly endorsing the banning of boycott by councils and universities, is at odds with the official Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advice. The FCO website states that it does not encourage or support firms that trade with illegal settlements. It further states that settlements are illegal under international law and constitute an obstacle to peace. The government’s moves are self-contradictory and raise serious questions regarding the erosion of democratic values in the UK.

It is clear to campaigners that government ministers are creating a confusion which may deter some citizens from continuing with the Boycott. We at Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA) call upon everyone to continue with the boycott of Israeli products and champion the cause for justice and freedom.

BDS activists should remain steadfast in their campaigning, and further lobby councillors, local authorities and universities to join them in the boycott and divest from companies complicit in violations of international law.

“It can be seen that boycott has successfully been a tool used to bring about change for many years throughout history. Most recently, boycotts of Israel across all sectors have been called for worldwide as a protest against their occupation and ill-treatment of the Palestinian people. While boycott can be considered a grassroots level initiative, it has garnered significant support over the years and is coming to impact Israel in various manners.”

FOA is continuing to build on its own BDS successes, with the current focus being #CheckTheLabel. Every year, Israel exports millions of pounds worth of dates around the world, which many Muslims unknowingly buy and eat when breaking their fast. These dates are often grown in illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley, on land that has been stolen from Palestinians.

FOA is raising awareness of the existence of these dates, and encouraging shoppers to buy ethically and boycott these dates. Buying these dates helps Israel continue its illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. The #CheckTheLabel campaign has grown significantly over the last 8 years alongside the growing support for BDS in the UK. The campaign has gone to the heart of the communities in cities and towns across the UK to ensure no one buys these dates.

“A staggering proportion of dates worldwide are stolen from innocent Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their own farms and forced to work as slaves.

Find out the dismal facts and what you can do to avoid supporting such savage behaviour.”

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/campaigns/the-importance-of-boycotts-and-checkthelabel/feed/322081Islamophobia twists to the Baby Trump balloon sagahttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/islamophobia-twists-to-the-baby-trump-balloon-saga/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/islamophobia-twists-to-the-baby-trump-balloon-saga/#respondMon, 16 Jul 2018 16:01:52 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=35727“The Tories have ignored countless calls for an inquiry into Islamophobia in their party from their own members...Clearly there’s a problem, and if Brandon Lewis’s respect meant anything, Michael Fabricant would be suspended”.

]]>The anti-Trump demonstration in London on Friday, where around 250,000 demonstrators gathered, was remarkable indeed. Adding colour to the affair was the huge ‘Baby Trump’ protest balloon – a giant, orange inflatable the size of a two-storey house, which floated above Westminster. It was deemed to be a moment of weaponised humour in a broad, colourful and beautiful protest movement. It became one of the prime weapons of choice of the people who converged that day to protest against the visit of a demagogue, racist and a narcissist POTUS, to the UK. The cowardice of Trump entourage was however apparent, as his UK itinerary appears to have been planned out carefully to avoid the capital, the ‘Baby Trump’ and the London demonstrations as much as possible. Max Wakefield discusses the underlying rationale for flying the balloon, he states:[1]

‘..With his malevolent face of undisguised rage, enormous yellow quiff, securely fastened nappy – and really tiny hands – Trump Baby symbolises the essential facts about The Donald. A man of willful and breathtaking ignorance, he wanders in the self-reflecting hall of mirrors of a terrible infant’s psyche, blinded by his own brilliance. Bereft of morality, but rich in privilege, his crazed and cowardly self-love whimsically whips, taunts and abuses anyone it can lay its (tiny) hands on, concocting lies, hatred and violent group-think to feed the beast…This is the inner life of the most powerful man on earth. Now, when Trump visits the UK he will be greeted with this grotesque, floating and unavoidable vision of himself as viewed from the outside. And he will be pursued out of the country by our echoing laughter…’

Campaigners have reportedly raised more than £16,000 to pay for the six-metre inflatable, and thousands signed a petition requesting it be allowed to fly. It was the Balloon campaign co-organiser Matthew Butcher, describing himself as one of the ‘Trump babysitters’, who said the caricature acts as a ‘mirror’ to the president- a thin-skinned, over-inflated, mobile phone-holding baby, highlighting his ‘infantile’ approach to politics.

“People see it and they know what it’s getting at. It’s bringing to light his infantile way of doing politics and the dangers behind his politics. There’s a toddler-in-chief in charge at the White House and the real-life effects of those politics is pretty devastating”.[2]

Overlooking this massive public enthusiasm, the UK’s much powerful Islamophobia lobby and the biased sections of the Media however attempted to make use of this opportunity to dilute its significance by paint-brushing the ‘balloon and the protests’ with a dash of Islamophobia tar, in order to fan the flames of controversy. Nigel Farage, who recently even defended Trump retweeting Britain First anti-Muslim videos and also labelled Labour’s Chuka Umunna of being “anti-American” for labelling Trump, a “racist, misogynistic Islamophobe”, described the blimp as the ‘biggest ever insult to a sitting president’. The Islamophobia lobby thus turned their focus on the Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, blaming him for taking the decision.

In fact, Piers Morgan, widely considered a Trump stooge whose farcical interview with Trump some-time ago was well known, interviewed Khan on the Good Morning Britain show. The main talking point was Trump’s visit and Khan’s vocal criticism of the President. The balloon appeared to have ruffled Piers’ feathers; despite Sadiq Khan clearly stating that it was the Greater London Authority which approved the balloon to fly for a few hours and that he had no reason to act as the censor, adding ‘can you imagine if we limited freedom of speech because somebody’s feelings might be hurt?’ Piers kept on his harangue of heaping blame on Khan. Interestingly, during the interview, Piers shockingly asked whether he, being a Muslim, would like a balloon sent up depicting him as a pig.

There was another addition to this balloon drama. Michael Fabricant, the MP for Lichfield, tweeted the “offensive, highly inappropriate and racist” cartoon that showed the pig engaged in a sexual act with another pig. It appears alongside an image of the US president Donald Trump, with the comment: “Breaking news: Trump defeats Sadiq Khan in balloon wars”.

Although he later deleted the tweet, the damage was done. Responding to criticism from the senior Tory Sayeeda Warsi, who reposted a tweet which said “Islamophobia isn’t funny”, Mr Fabricant replied: “Sayeeda – the picture is vile. As soon as I saw what it was, I deleted it. I’m liberal and not anybody-phobic’. As Independent UK reported; ‘Responding to the image Afzal Khan, the shadow immigration minister, said:

“The Tories have ignored countless calls for an inquiry into Islamophobia in their party from their own members, the former chair of the party and the Muslim Council of Britain. Clearly there’s a problem, and if Brandon Lewis’s respect meant anything, Michael Fabricant would be suspended”.

The Labour MP, Wes Streeting, added that he had written to the government’s chief whip requesting action be taken against the Tory MP for “his offensive, highly inappropriate and racist” post on social media. “I’m sick of the mayor’s religion being used a punchline and punch bag by racists and bigots,” he added. “MPs should know better.”[3]

This sadly reminds of the Islamophobic London Mayoral campaign of Tory Zac Goldsmith in 2016 when he painted Labour’s Sadiq Khan as a closet extremist and repeatedly questioned Khan’s judgement in associating with alleged extremists before he became an MP. Zac was then criticised for an article in the Mail illustrated with a picture from the 7th July 2005 bombings and headlined:

“Are we really going to hand the world’s greatest city to a Labour party that thinks terrorists are its friends?”

The Muslim Council of Britain also recently sent an open letter to Conservative party chair Brandon Lewis with a list of examples of elected officials making horrifically Islamophobic comments, including a councillor calling Muslims “parasites”.

Not surprisingly, Trump in an interview with the Sun, UK blamed Khan for doing a “very bad job on terrorism” by allowing so many migrants to settle in the capital, clearly being unfairly singled out because he is a Muslim. Khan countered:

“Like other cities, we suffered from terror attacks last year. We unfortunately lost 14 people, they’re still in our thoughts and prayers. Manchester also suffered a terror attack and lost 22 people including young people. Paris, Nice, Brussels, Berlin, cities in America all suffered terror attacks.”

It was as far back as 2011 that Sayeeda Warsi, the then Conservative party chairman, said that Islamophobia had “passed the dinner-table test” and become widely socially acceptable in Britain.

It is deeply disappointing that the UK government continues to ignore this elephant in the room, and tolerates bigotry in all its forms even amongst the higher echelons of power, despite the British public speaking loud and clear that racism is unacceptable. People who protested against a “stupid, callous, fragile, racist, narcissistic POTUS” (as a poster read) on Friday, in their clearest terms echoed that they will expect nothing less than a country with zero tolerance to racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and where diversity is celebrated.

However, if the past is anything to go by, those in government often feign sleep in the midst of public outcries in this regard and only persistent public activism can push them towards concerted action to tackle bigotry and racism.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/islamophobia-twists-to-the-baby-trump-balloon-saga/feed/035727A Tangled Web of Religion in Politicshttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/tangled-web-religion-politics/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/tangled-web-religion-politics/#commentsTue, 20 Feb 2018 19:00:22 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=30094Some may say that the political arena is no place for religious sensibilities but, now and again, religion does raise its head...

]]>Some may say that the political arena is no place for religious sensibilities but, now and again, religion does raise its head.

I am a Muslimah who recently joined the Labour Party, not because I believe any political party can solve society’s ills but because I had hopes that life in the U.K. could be better than it is now and that we can act to pursue such an aim. In this instance, there emerged a person of upstanding and fair character, a man who seemed to want to make our society more equal and just. Such was Jeremy Corbyn. Hundreds of thousands thought the same and they too joined the Labour party with the same hopes and the same desire to get Jeremy Corbyn elected.

Such was the shock of the establishment elites at the prospect of a leader who seemingly did not believe in working for the benefit of the ‘few’ to the detriment of the ‘many’, that all manner of ‘dark arts’ were, and are, employed to ensure he never reaches the seat of power. There are some very wealthy people happy enough to make money in this country that, by various offshore activities, minimise the taxes they pay. It is people such as these that do not want a man with a vision of a more egalitarian society in power.

Then there are the foreign policy interests. It seems likely that the Israeli state is particularly interested in ensuring the U.K. has a leader who will turn a blind eye to clear injustice. For this reason, “Israel” suddenly and unexpectedly sent its top man, Mark Regev, to our shores.[2] This was once the post of Ambassador became vacant after the then-ambassador was reportedly left vulnerable to blackmail from his frequent late night visitors to his official residence.

Most Muslims will know Mark Regev as the man who regularly appeared on their television screens justifying the bombing of civilians in their homes; the raining down of phosphorus on the population of Gaza, and even the slaughtering with missiles of innocent children on the beach.[1]

Regev’s main objective seems to be to mobilise various established Israel lobby groups and newer astro-turfed Israel advocacy groups to stop Corbyn ever becoming Prime Minister. His arrival coincided with a coordinated attack on the Labour party and its leadership. If we had thought “by way of deception thou shalt do war” was just a slogan, evidence suggests such a war exists within our political arena with a controlled and biased mainstream media also trying to sabotage Corbyn’s chances. Of course, if anyone in the party were to suggest that there was a particular demographic engaging in these sinister plots they would be deemed an anti-Semite. This is not a battle that anyone using logic can win.

Prime amongst pro-Israel groups within the Labour Party is the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and last week its leader, one Jeremy Newmark, suddenly hit the Jewish media headlines – and not in a good way. These headlines referred to events of some years back and the timing of these revelations might be seen as somewhat Machiavellian in nature, all of which may become clearer in the days and weeks to come. What is clear now is that despite the fact that the mainstream media has always been more than happy to report on unproven allegations made against Corbyn supporters in the Labour party, including myself, [3] they have yet to report on this story.

What happened?

It is alleged that during the time he was in his previous job as CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), an umbrella group and charity for other Jewish groups, Jeremy Newmark engaged in fraudulent cheating on his expenses. Rather than being sacked, Newmark was ‘allowed to resign’ from the charity for reasons of ill-health though his ‘ill-health’ did not prevent him from standing as the Finchley & Golders Green constituency Labour Party Candidate in the 2017 General Election, or from presently holding the position of Labour Councillor in Borehamwood.

But it is from a religious standpoint that the circumstances around this resignation make for interesting reading. Despite having allegedly taken thousands of pounds by means of massively inflated expenses,[4] the Jewish Chronicle reports that the decision by the Trustees of the charity to conceal Newmark’s wrongdoings was taken on the basis of ‘Lashon Hara’ the traditional Jewish ‘principle’ of not speaking ill of someone.[5]

Of course we have similar principles against speaking ill of people in Islām. But at what point does the principle of not speaking ill become, in itself, a way to cover up? And is it not understandable that, in their claimed desire to adhere to Lashon Hara, some trustees of the Jewish Leadership Council might be subject to accusations of engaging in a massive ‘cover-up.

This is made worse by the fact that Mr Newmark has had his character called into question on two previous occasions: once in a court case where the judge rejected his evidence as untrue [6] and then in an article which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle last year, claiming Mr Newmark left an Israeli taxi driver with an unpaid bill of £3,000.[7] When the alleged decision to cover up the misdemeanours of Jeremy Newmark was taken, no consideration seems to have been given to the possibility that he might go on to cause harm to others. Is this how Jewish leaders protect their community?

This alleged cover-up is all the more alarming when one notes who was involved – Vivian Wineman, at that time President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews; Stephen Pack, at that time, President of the United Synagogue; and even Sir Mick Davies the CEO of the Conservative Party. All these, plus other prominent community leaders are named in the Jewish Chronicle article. Even now, despite JLM promising that there will be an investigation and that they will take advice on the findings, there are people within the Jewish community who insist that only a person with no connection to the community should be allowed to preside over the investigation. Those of us who are familiar with ‘Israeli justice’ (surely an oxymoron) know that they rarely, if ever, find themselves guilty.

I am sure that in allowing Mr Newmark to stand down instead of being sacked on the grounds of ill health, with three months full salary plus expenses, they believed they were acting for the good of themselves and of the community, and one can imagine how these worthies comforted themselves by telling themselves and others a nice story – that, by not exposing Jeremy Newmark to public humiliation, they were acting out of the noble principle of Lashon Hara.

Until days ago, Newmark, as well as being the ex-CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council was also the leader of the pro-Zionist Jewish Labour Movement whose members, along with other Israel supporters, have been involved in some Machiavellian smearing and denouncing for ‘anti-Semitism’ of a number of Jeremy Corbyn supporters within the party. Suspected tactics include the use of sock-puppet accounts to spy on members’ social media accounts.

Many people were horrified by the findings of the recent Aljazeera documentary The Lobby. This documentary resulted from Aljazeera undercover filming of Zionist parliamentary lobby groups attempting, by nefarious means, to influence British politics. Members of Labour Friends of Israel, Jewish Labour Movement and other Israel lobby groups were exposed in various ways, including the use of a £1million slush fund, the purpose of which has never been explained.

Joan Ryan M.P. for Enfield North was filmed falsely accusing a party member of anti-Semitism and Shai Masot, a senior staff member of the Israeli embassy, was shown expressing his wish to ‘bring down’ a government minister seen as problematic to Israel. Light relief was provided by another JLM member seen threatening to use her ‘Krag Mava’ (unarmed combat skills as used by the Israeli military) on Jackie Walker. None of this has been fully investigated by either the Conservative or the Labour party and no explanation for the various plots, including those of the State of Israel agent, Shai Masot, has been given.

Likewise, last summer we had the case of Pritti Patel who seemed in the process of being groomed by the Israeli government as a possible future leader of the Conservative Party. Ms Patel’s activities, whilst on holiday in Israel, included clandestine meetings with senior Israeli political figures, all the way up to and including Netanyahu himself. It was puzzling that Ms Patel too was given the opportunity to resign, rather than be sacked, for what many felt were traitorous activities.[11] Ms. Patel, however, remains an M.P. and there is little doubt such an ambitious lady will, sometime in the future, try (and probably succeed) to make a comeback. After all, recall Sir Liam Fox who, after his embarrassing exposé of illicit involvement with Israeli doings only a few years ago is, after a brief period on the back benches, already back as Secretary of State for International Trade.[12] It seems that when it comes to working for the benefit of the “Jewish State”, there is little accountability for wrongdoing and little evidence of any integrity, propriety or shame from those politicians who are exposed and compromised. Nor is there any appetite from our mainstream media or from our political parties to spend any time or effort in investigating any dodgy deeds that involves potential damage to our relationship with the Jewish state.

It is no secret that many Corbyn supporters who have been targeted and denounced for “anti-Semitism” are also activists for Palestinian rights and, looking at the profiles of those accused on the Campaign Against anti-Semitism website,[13] it is noteworthy that 13 out of 39 accused Labour members happen to be Muslim. The website even contains a page especially dedicated to ‘Muslims and anti- Semitism’ which alleges that anti-Semitism is increasing amongst British Muslims. I am pretty sure that what they are really complaining about is not any hatred of Jewish people, but rather increasing frustration and dismay at the situation in Palestine.

The Jeremy Newmark cover up by some leading lights within the Jewish community is surely very damaging for that community. That Mr Newmark remains a Labour councillor and is as yet unsuspended from the Labour party is also damaging to the Labour Party and to its General Secretary Iain McNicol – especially when so many other Labour members have been suspended for so much less.

As well as the damage done by these disgraceful happenings to the Jewish community, to the Labour Party and to the wider British community, should we not, as Muslims, also be concerned? As Muslims we have a commitment to justice whoever it is for or against, and not be afraid of smears of blamers. Allāh says,

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.”[14]

The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wasallam) set the standard for the rest of the world to follow when establishing justice and rights independent from the power, tribal or national loyalties that the world was then steeped in. It would thus be a shame if Muslims were to leave this guidance and opt for a politics without their religion.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/tangled-web-religion-politics/feed/130094Revealed: How British Fearmongers Made Millionshttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/#commentsSat, 11 Mar 2017 18:19:06 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25499In my last article,[1] I tried to explain the imminent threat populism poses in the western world and asserted that Islamophobia is currently the populist tool of choice. Recent financial revelations in Holland have proven this beyond doubt and provided a strong link to their influence in the UK. Politically-awake Muslims will be well aware ...

]]>In my last article,[1] I tried to explain the imminent threat populism poses in the western world and asserted that Islamophobia is currently the populist tool of choice. Recent financial revelations in Holland have proven this beyond doubt and provided a strong link to their influence in the UK.

Politically-awake Muslims will be well aware of Robert Spencer, an Islam hater so extreme in his preaching that he is banned from entering the UK, a country that is not totally averse to promoting fear of Muslims. He runs a vitriolic blog called ‘Jihad Watch’ which received funding of nearly $1 million from the double-speak titled ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’.[2] It has now emerged that David Horowitz has been one of the largest funders of Geert Wilders of the equally double-speak titled ‘People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy’,[3] currently leading in Dutch polls. In 2015 alone Horowitz donated $120,000, more than enough to run a political party with only one member in a country you can cross on £20 of petrol. It was the largest individual contribution in the Dutch political system.

Another six figure donor to Geert Wilders is the “Middle East Forum”. Founded by noted Islamophobe Daniel Pipes, it was cited 18 times in Anders Breivik’s anti-Islam manifesto.[4]

The principle donor to Pipes and Horowitz and onto Wilders is said to be the Koch brothers, American multi-billionaires and key funders of the right-wing infrastructure. In a two year period they invested over $21 million in groups promoting Islamophobia “contributing to an anti-Islamic hysteria in the United States”.[5] Rather than being the heads, Horowitz and Pipes are merely the paid mouthpieces and conduits funnelling right wing money into the pockets of populist agitators like Geert Wilders.

The New York Times reported senior Dutch MP Ronald van Raak as saying “It’s foreign interference in our democracy. We would not have thought that people from other countries would have been interested in our politics,” he said. “Maybe we underestimated ourselves.” Rather they have underestimated the strategic position the coming Dutch election has for suspiciously well-funded Machiavellian far-right provocateurs. This year the major western European nations have important elections and all have far-right parties riding higher in the polls than any time since the 1930s. The stars are aligning and the Dutch election next week is the first to the ballot box.

The Henry Jackson Society’s Statement of Principles give a very clear picture of a white supremacist arrogance that seems out of step with Theresa May’s recent promise not to try to make the rest of the world in “our image”.[6] It “Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate”, “that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire” and “Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach.”[7]

In 2011 the emphasis of the HJS took a shift toward greater promotion of Islamophobia following a merger with Douglas Murray’s (yet another) double-speak titled ‘Centre for Social Cohesion’, and taking on many of the pro-Israel journalists from ‘Just Journalism’. According to a Spinwatch report this facilitated “a coup that led to the expulsion of most of the society’s more left-leaning or liberal members,” though in this context it is undoubtedly relative. This change of focus was accompanied by a sharp rise of income. From £98,000 in 2009 to £1,313,000 per annum in 2013, the sharpest rise happening in 2011.

Following the 2011 “coup”, a number of UK based pro-Israel groups started pouring in money into the HJS. From the USA one known funder is the ‘Abstraction Fund’ which has also funded an array of radical pro-zionist, anti-Islam and pro-Islamic deformation organisations including ‘Jihad watch’, ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’, Daniel Pipes linked ‘American Islamic Forum for Democracy’ and ‘Center for Islamic Pluralism’, and the ‘Zionist Organisation of America’.[8]

The President and treasurer of this fund whose single donor is her family’s Sears Roebuck fortune, is Nina Rosenwald[9] the so called “Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate”.[10] She is the founder of the Gatestone Institute which publishes Douglas Murray’s and Geert Wilders Islamophobic bile. She is also on the board of the ‘Center for Security Policy’ which shares far-right Islamophobic funders with David Horowitz.[11]

The above change of focus and known sources of funding are more than enough to prove they are no longer the HJS originally conceived and cannot be thought of as an impartial “think tank”. They are beyond doubt a pro-Israel and anti-Islam lobby group. Moreover despite what is known the HJS are so ashamed of their other sources of funding they refuse to disclose them even on pain of functional death. For refusing they were forced to withdraw from parliamentary groups that were their main Trojan horse into Westminster,[12] suggesting that their donors are so disreputable it would be an even worse political suicide to disclose them.

Dr David Miller of Spinwatch says in his report into the HJS “By solidifying a transatlantic alliance between anti-Islam groups and those unconditionally supportive of Zionism, the Islamophobia network has successfully tapped into the financial and political resources of the Israel lobby.”[13]

It seems highly plausible that it could be to a large degree the other way around; that the Israel lobby has bought up parts of the right wing network and tapped into their enthusiasm for xenophobia and white supremacy, to push the Islamophobic populist narrative. They could be believing – correctly – that the more people will think ill of Muslims the more forgiving they will be of Israel’s crimes against the Muslim victims of its land grabbing. After all, the demonisation of any group serves to dehumanise and thus ultimately legitimise their persecution.

Dr Miller continues,

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”

None of this is new. None of this should have been unknown to the political establishment of the UK before they rolled out the red carpet last week and invited the HJS into Westminster to trumpet the “research” anyone of reasonable intellect must surely realise will be skewed by the Islamophobic lens the HJS are well known for. It was well known before they rushed to declare the HJS as an unquestionably reliable source of research into the only extremism they go into with enthusiasm: “Islamist Terrorism”. That word itself needs to be strongly protested. The suffix “-ist” literally means “to be engaged in”, so they are using a blanket term for every practicing Muslim as a prefix to terrorism, and then claim not to promote Islamophobia.

Something common to all media reports on this was that David Anderson QC, who was the (previously believed to be) independent terror watchdog, was mentioned more than the HJS who authored the study. In fairness to the media his glowing introduction, which he penned while still in post, allowed himself to be walked out in front and used as a human respectability shield. It seems most likely that he would not have been able to thoroughly fact-check the 1000 page report before he dutifully declared, “I commend it to all who wish to ensure that their opinions on this subject are securely founded on the facts”.[14] The fact that it solely concentrated on convictions of Muslims didn’t noticeably trouble him at all in fact with no irony he praised it as defending us from people who work against “tolerance, pluralism and broad-mindedness on which democracy itself depends.”

Andrew Gilligan writing in The Times could see the benefit of their approach and made use of its singular focus. As though a study solely of Muslim convictions would find them growing up anywhere else, his article was titled:

“Terror map reveals danger of segregation: A detailed study of the origins of British Islamists has exposed a clear link between terrorist crimes and growing up in a predominantly Muslim area.”[15]

One angle that will have been deeply attractive to the government, and likely influenced their disregard of its provenance, is that this report appears to justify the much discredited Prevent agenda, though the full ramifications of traumatising hundreds of primary school children and radicalising non-Muslims against us might not yet be evident. Still, the publicity the report generated was being used to roll the Prevent ideology out more broadly to the public; “you are all on the frontline of the war against terror, be suspicious of ‘people’.” said Police spokespeople up and down the country, clearly ready with a rehearsed and unified message. Riding the same wave of publicity generated by a report concentrating solely on Muslim convictions it needs no imagination to know which ‘people’ will be in everyone’s minds.

Another aspect that I think really attracts the government to HJS’s research is that it is cheap. So what if it is slanted far to the right? So what if there are hard-core Islamophobic funders who will be expecting bang for their buck? The bottom line is it is cheap. In Austerity Britain, academic standards that would apply to medical research, specifically the obligatory declaration of who funded it, can be put aside for research of even this sensitive nature because they do not have to take the pill. They are not the ones whose wives and daughters will be attacked for wearing a headscarf. They are not the ones who are already 76% less likely to get a good job,[16] and then be abused for being in a poor economic position or not integrating.

But they are the ones who will be remembered for opening the door to highly practiced Machiavellian populist manipulators that make our fairly right wing government look like snowflake liberals. The Islamophobic subtext that came attached to this bargain basement research gained huge traction in the media and will have lodged in the public consciousness. As I tried to describe in my last article the public can only be pushed so far before they will want to bury the current establishment that “let this Muslim problem happen,” as Mrs Merkel is finding out, and bring in a new ‘braver’ type of politician that will not be afraid to take action against people they are repeatedly told are an enormous threat. What can be banked on is that American far-right and Zionist money will be at the ready to promote the right candidates to victory.

A few days after the HJS report was given so much Westminster fanfare and media attention the Home Office quietly released the official terrorism policing statistics for 2016. They show a combined Black, Asian & Other 42% fall in the number of arrests and a 20% increase of white people arrested for Terrorism offenses in the last year.[17] I can only find it mentioned in three newspapers. I am guessing facts are bad for the fearmongering business.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/feed/525499Londoners Reject the Politics of Racism & Fearhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/londoners-reject-the-politics-of-racism-fear/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/londoners-reject-the-politics-of-racism-fear/#commentsTue, 10 May 2016 15:54:17 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=21583Since London woke up to confirmation of a resounding win for Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Elections, another campaign of blame apportioning in the Conservative Party seems to be underway. The “blame game” for the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s defeat began before the final vote count at London’s City Hall had even been announced. ...

]]>Since London woke up to confirmation of a resounding win for Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Elections, another campaign of blame apportioning in the Conservative Party seems to be underway.

The “blame game” for the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s defeat began before the final vote count at London’s City Hall had even been announced. It seems clear that David Cameron and his party want to pin their candidate’s defeat firmly onto Mr Goldsmith and his campaign manager Lynton Crosby’s shoulders, whilst distancing themselves from the reality that Mr Cameron was very much a major player in a very dirty game.

To engage in “Dog Whistle politics” is to disseminate a message that has a coded undertone and, in this particular case, the aim was to highlight the fact that Sadiq Khan is a Muslim. We heard that Sadiq Khan, during his career as a human rights lawyer, had represented some so-called “Muslim extremists” and had “shared a platform” with others. The message to the public was clearly to convey that Sadiq Khan, as a Muslim, is possibly dangerous and if not then he knows people who might well be.

This recent phenomenon of judging people by whom they happened to have attended the same event as, or “shared a platform with”, is a preposterous method used rather effectively to inhibit free speech. We have seen this tactic used to prevent Islamic scholars and Palestinian rights activists from speaking at events on University campuses, desperately linking two people to events or to so-called religious extremism when they have no real connection or influence over each other.

David Cameron used the “shared a platform” smear in the most outrageous and inaccurate way in his attempt to create a connection between the Labour candidate and terrorism. He drew a link between the totally innocent Sheikh Suliman Ghani, previously the Imam of Tooting Mosque, and Sadiq Khan. Mr Cameron used the dispatch box to make the claim that Suliman Ghani supported ISIS which was an outright lie and one that unraveled very quickly after the respected Sheikh heard about the claim and rightly fought back quickly on social media to clear his name. Sheikh Ghani challenged David Cameron to make the claim again, this time away from the dispatch box so that he could legally challenge him on his words.

It was pointed out very quickly on social media that Suliman Ghani had spoken earlier this year at an Islamic event about “The Evils of ISIS”. This was not only pointed out by Mr Ghani, but was also uncovered during a comprehensive investigation into Mr Ghani by LBC radio journalist Theo Usherwood. This is a lesson to us that not everyone in generally pro-establishment media is our enemy; some are honest and should be commended. Indeed, Theo Usherwood, having gathered detailed information on Suliman Ghani, confronted Zac Goldsmith face to face with the facts. This was a chance for Mr Goldsmith to reconsider the claims, but Mr Goldsmith remained firm on his position that Sadiq Khan gave cover to extremists. Surely, after Theo Usherwood confronted Mr Goldsmith with his refutation of the claims against Mr Ghani, Mr Goldsmith should have requested his office to look into the matter further.

Incredibly enough, the claim that Suliman Ghani supports ISIS was repeated by Michael Fallon, the Defense Secretary on BBC radio 4’s Today programme, the morning after Sadiq Khan’s victory. Sheikh Ghani will be able to look for legal redress as, this time, the Member of Parliament spoke without parliamentary privilege, away from the dispatch box in the House of Commons. A petition has been created, David Cameron must apologise to Suliman Gani, which we should all help disseminating. It is a shame that it has only received 3,000 signatures so far. This is something we should all play our part in for creating the push for accountability.

Rumblings in the media as to the extent of the negativity in the campaign being waged by the Conservative party against Sadiq Khan did not appear to have pricked the Tory conscience nor dented the heavy armour of the strategic tank battalion of the Lynton Crosby managed campaign. Perhaps it was the unexpected victory in the 2015 General Election by the Tories giving them a perception of invincibility or perhaps it is a trait that comes from having a background of exceptional privilege that enabled them to exceed the limits of what might have been considered the normal rough and tumble of electioneering.

Unbelievably, the situation went from bad to even worse when, despite the facts having been in the public domain for some days, rather than back down and admit that he had perhaps been given incorrect information, Mr Cameron went on to make more spurious claims against Mr Ghani for a second time at Prime Ministers Questions last week.

This, I believe, was the final straw for many voters in a campaign by the Conservative party, which had long since been labeled as racist and Islamophobic. Talking to people in my community and listening to members of the public being interviewed about their voting choices on the radio, it emerged that many had been put off voting for Zac Goldsmith by the fact that his campaign was just too dirty.

And this is one cause for celebration at the election result. Whatever our disagreements with Sadiq Khan as an individual, it is heartening to know that the majority of voters in London said ‘No’ to the politics of fear and racism. Of course, he is by no means a Muslim known for holding onto the Islamic Values and principles Islam has empowered Muslims with, and of course some of his past, present and future actions will be seen by all schools of thought as major sins to put it lightly. But if we look to the broader social and political context, it does not take an optimist to appreciate the fact that someone who was constantly spun as a ‘Muslim mayor’, ‘extremist sympathiser’ or some kind of closet Islamist by the right-wing press, was elected to one of the highest posts in the country despite the propaganda against him. It suggests that the racists and Islamophobes who could not look past his ‘Muslimness’ were outnumbered by those who could. It suggests that those who are intelligent enough to see past propaganda outnumber those that are stupid enough to fall for it.

Sadiq Khan must recognise that many people may have voted for him because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has always been a firm supporter of the Palestinian right to self determination, a cause very close to every Muslim’s heart and for which he faces such a hostile campaign from the pro-Israel Blairites in his own party and the mainstream media. Even more importantly, he will be held to account by Allah for more than most of us—for everything he does and does not do with the new powers he is being tested with.

No doubt there will be much more analysis of the Mayoral election for the days and weeks to come and I, for one, do not want David Cameron or the increasingly pro-establishment mainstream media to escape responsibility for the failure of the Conservative candidate. Week by week, as Cameron and his fellow Tory front benchers who love to sit honking and braying throughout Prime Ministers Questions or even through debates on reducing disability benefits from the most vulnerable people in our society, the public perception of them as the nasty party is one that has been well earned. Despite Labour actually winning seats in these elections and the Tories losing some, the mainstream media is desperately spinning the results as a Labour fail.

For myself and other Muslims who voted for various candidates based on the policies of particular candidates that appealed to us as individuals, there is little culture of block voting. It is true that many Muslims voted Labour historically but a couple of generations down the line there are even some who have, in the past, voted Conservative too. Political awareness is growing in the Muslim community. With some organisation and direction from community leaders we could become a cohesive force that political parties seek out to court for our votes. Given direction and leadership, if Muslims were a cohesive force we could in fact influence policies because candidates would see the benefit of having our votes. Sadly, however, politically we are mostly reactive and not proactive. We need to go to the political parties and discuss with them the issues that are most important for us as Muslims. The Green Party in particular has policies that appeal to Muslims but I do feel for sure that many of us for the foreseeable future might feel inclined to vote for anyone but the Tories.

One benefit of the dirty campaign run by Cameron’s Tories and their supporters in the media is that we have seen the machinations of the Israel-supporters as both individuals and groups come out into full view. The campaign of alleged anti-Semitism against Corbyn and those who support him was obviously manufactured to cause maximum disruption just before voting day. Every pro-Israel lobby group representative was found space in the media to repeat the lie that anti-Israel criticism and activism are equal to or a manifestation of Jew hatred. Unfortunately, Corbyn was weak enough to react to this by setting in place an enquiry in anti-Semitism within the Labour party. This was an initiative that the lobbyists immediately took as an admission that the problem exists. It is allegedly an anti-Semitic trope to say that pro-Israel lobbies have disproportionate control of media and politics but, after the sheer amount of coverage that the “anti-Semitism in Labour” story was given in the media and the number of politicians who lined to condemn anti-Semitism and confirm they believed in the State of Israel’s right to exist, we were left in no doubt as to the reality. Naz Shah apologised so extensively for her supposed anti-Semitic post on social media and even agreed to be educated on the evils of anti-Semitism. As if, as an Asian herself, she has no understanding of racism. I think we can expect a visit to Israel and Yad Vashem to be a part of her reeducation – again blurring the lines between real anti-Semitism i.e. Jew hatred, and opposition to the racist Zionism of the State of Israel. Conversely the open and clear Islamophobia that exists in certain political parties is not just ignored but also actively promoted in the media. Is there any real difference between the Tory party and Britain First except the members of one had a more expensive education?

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/londoners-reject-the-politics-of-racism-fear/feed/2221583Zionist Ideology is the Struggle of Our Generationhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/zionist-ideology-is-the-struggle-of-our-generation/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/zionist-ideology-is-the-struggle-of-our-generation/#commentsWed, 04 May 2016 16:13:26 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=21480As many of you will have seen from recent events, there has been a real aggressive push from the Zionist lobby in aiming to shut down debate of Israel once and for all by seeking to equate anti-Zionism with ant-Semitism. Allegations such as ‘when someone attacks Zionism they are indirectly attacking Jews because the two ...

]]>As many of you will have seen from recent events, there has been a real aggressive push from the Zionist lobby in aiming to shut down debate of Israel once and for all by seeking to equate anti-Zionism with ant-Semitism. Allegations such as ‘when someone attacks Zionism they are indirectly attacking Jews because the two go hand in hand’ are dangerous and make a mockery out of the serious issue of anti-Semitism which must be strongly opposed like any other form of racism.

Zionism is a political project which has the support of many Jews as well some evangelical Christians. It has to be recognised as a political project and therefore must be open to criticism and opposition by all. It cannot be regarded as beyond reproach. There are, of course, Jews who subscribe to Zionism, and as such, our opposition to such individuals would be on the premise of their Zionist ideology, not because of the fact that they are a Jew.

In order to defeat Zionism, we must begin by understanding the threat we face and why we face it and understand exactly what it represents. It is an ideology and an extreme doctrine and, like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. But, at the heart of the ideology is its racism.

Zionism is a Racist Ideology

A watershed moment in the struggle against Zionism came in 1965 when the United Nations (UN), supported by the United States and Israel, passed Resolution 2106 defining racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.” Ten years later, on November 10, 1975, the United Nations applied this definition to Zionism [Resolution 3379] condemning and concluding that Zionism is:

“A form of racism and racial discrimination.”[1]

This resolution was passed by 72 countries, representing 52% of the Earth’s population. 35 countries voted against the Resolution and 32 abstained.

Some of the reasons why the UN decided to pass the resolution was as follows:

(1) Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, notes in his diary that the removal of Arabs bodily from Palestine, is part of the Zionist plan to “spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment … Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”[2].

(2) Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, is reported by British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon to want “a Jewish State, a Jewish nation, a subordinate population of Arabs etc. ruled by Jews; the Jews in possession of the fat of the land, and directing the administration.”[3]

(3) Joseph Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency charged with acquiring Palestinian land, insists, “The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all land west of the Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point… We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe.”[4]

In addition, the UN would have had regard to Israel’s enacting of the Law of Return, granting all Jews anywhere in the world, and only Jews, the right to immigrate to Israel and granting only Jews, the status both of Israeli citizenship and Jewish nationality. This distinction between citizenship and nationality, unique to the Zionist state, becomes the legal basis for state sanctioned discrimination, whereby only Jewish nationals are eligible for many of the privileges and services provided by the state or by its semi-governmental Zionist organisations. They would also have had to approve many other discriminatory laws as well as the building of endless settlements.

The UN had, in actual fact, developed on earlier motions passed. The General Assembly condemned, inter-alia the “unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism” by passing Resolution 3151 on 14 December 1973.[6] In addition, there existed Resolution 77 which was adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity held in Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975. It that:

“the racist regime in occupied Palestine and racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being.”[7]

It is not surprising that the US used its influence in the UN to repeal the condemnation of Zionism as set out in Resolution 3379 and thereby rewriting history in 1991. Despite the repeal, the effect of Zionism, of course, remains racist.

Comparing Zionism with Nazism

Zionists argue that comparing Nazism with Zionism is anti-Semitic. Yet, you will find that the foremost amongst those who have made this link over the years have been anti-Zionists members from the Jewish community. Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and other prominent Jewish Americans, writing in The New York Times, protested the visit to America of Zionist Menachem Begin:

“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the Freedom Party (Herut), a political party closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy, and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.” [Begin later became Prime Minister as did Herut member, Yitzhak Shamir.][8]

Will today’s Zionists call Einstein, Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of the special and general theory of relativity, an anti-Semite?

What will they also make of the statement from the famous Jewish philosopher and former Zionist, Martin Buber who later recanted the ideology and said:

“When we returned to Palestine … the majority of people preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from us [Jews].”[9]

Are they also going to call Martin Buber an anti-Semite?

In addition, whilst commenting on the Israeli military’s Emergency Regulations which involved settling on Palestinian land, subjecting Palestinians to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, deportation and collective punishment, Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and a survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, observed in 1983:

“[Zionism is a] regime based on structural discrimination and racism… Hitler’s legal power was based upon the `Enabling Act’, which was passed quite legally by the Reichstag and which allowed the Fuehrer and his representatives, in plain language, to do what they wanted, or in legal language, to issue regulations having the force of law. Exactly the same type of act was passed by the Knesset [Israel’s Parliament] immediately after the 1967 conquest granting the Israeli governor and his representatives the powers of Hitler, which they use in a Hitlerian manner.”[10]

Similarly, Rabbi Irving Reichert of the American Council for Judaism in a 1936 sermon in San Francisco, stated:

“There is too dangerous a parallel between the insistence of some Zionist spokesmen upon nationality and race and blood, and similar pronouncements by Fasicst leaders in European dictatorships”.[11]

Points to Note:

Zionism should never be confused with Judaism. It is clear from the above that this is something that many Jews have been protesting against right from its inception up until today. Few people deserve to be honoured for courage and resourcefulness in the service of justice as Rabbi Berger does. For over 40 years he spoke out and wrote eloquently against the two headed perniciousness of Zionism—the violence it has done to the Palestinians and the damage it has inflicted on Judaism. He was a founder of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and later American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism. In an era so lacking in heroes, Rabbi Berger is an inspiration who developed a religious philosophy of integration and not nationalism. In 1943, Rabbi Berger stated:

“I oppose Zionism because I deny that Jews are a nation. We were a nation for perhaps two hundred years in a history of four thousand years. Before that we were a group of warring Semitic tribes whose only tenuous bond of unity was a national deity—a religious unity… Certainly since the Dispersion we have not been a nation. We have belonged to every nation of the world. Jewish nationalism is a fabrication woven from the thinnest kind of threads and strengthened only in those eras of human history in which reaction has been dominant and anti-Semites in full cry”.[12]

Zionism is a racism ideology, as was declared by many nations of the world as discussed above. Zionism is an ideology that shares many traits similar to that of Nazism and Fascism as stated by a number of commentators from the Jewish community as mentioned above. By overseeing the systematic killing of the Palestinian people, using chemical weaponry during conflict and then denying these facts, it can be argued that this is akin to anti-Semites who irrationally deny the Holocaust took place.

Israel is a secular, Zionist state and yet one of the greatest crimes it has committed is to refer to itself as the ‘Jewish State’ in an effort to give itself legitimacy in the eyes of the world and linking it to the Jewish faith. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish “nation” whilst having no religious education.

Zionists also attack those who refuse to recognise Israel and yet there is nothing anti-Semitic to oppose recognising a Zionist, occupying, racist State. In fact, there are a number of Haredi Jewish groups which not only oppose Zionism, but also do not recognise the State of Israel. Among them are the Hasidic sects of Shomer Emunim (and its offshoots, Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok), Mishkenos HoRoim and Dushinsky. Are these religious Jews to be considered anti-Semites?

In conclusion, we must continue to stand up for justice and in solidarity with the work that was begun by brave Jews who opposed Zionism right from its very inception and expose the ideology for what it is. I leave you with a quote from Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor, which encapsulates what Zionism is and its dangers:

“[Zionism] can be described as a mirror image of anti-Semitism, since it, like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world”.[13]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/zionist-ideology-is-the-struggle-of-our-generation/feed/621480Rise of the Keyboard Army | A new era of Muslim political activismhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/rise-of-the-keyboard-army/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/rise-of-the-keyboard-army/#commentsWed, 11 Feb 2015 11:27:28 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=16703Rise of the Keyboard Army A new era of Muslim political activism Lobbying takes its name from the lobbies, or hallways, of Parliament where MPs and peers gather before and after debates in the Commons and Lords chambers.[1] Today, with the advent of newer technologies, no longer does one need to linger in the corridors ...

Lobbying takes its name from the lobbies, or hallways, of Parliament where MPs and peers gather before and after debates in the Commons and Lords chambers.[1]

Today, with the advent of newer technologies, no longer does one need to linger in the corridors of Westminster, we can effectively lobby with two clicks or taps on the phone. But why are we discussing something supposedly reserved for large multi-national companies or private groups that can afford to shower MPs with “gifts” or whisk them off to lavish trips to Israel?[2]

Since the dissolution of the unity of Islām, whether this was after the Umayyad Caliphate or after the last Ottoman Caliphate and Europe’s annexation of Asia and Africa is subject to debate, Muslims have been longing for unity. So, in reality, we are now nomads seeking protection in whichever state we happen to fall in. Our [British] passports state that in the “name of Her Majesty” we travel in; we have accepted a treaty to abide and live by. Just like the noblest statesman who ever lived (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) who made the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, these concepts of citizenship and integrated society is not new.

However, the post-1900s Muslims are made to feel and think they are inferior by the myriad of complex media and social systems in the west. Some western historians state Islām spread by the sword, and today we have some of our youth translating this to pick up arms and follow our heroes of the past. But this is far from the truth, our pious ancestors were active in social and political engagement – but today, how many Muslims in Britain know who their local MP is or what constituency they belong to? During a recent trip to the MRDF Family Conference 2014, where Muslims from all over the UK come to gather for a weekend, I took the opportunity to test my philosophy and randomly asked ‘who is your local MP?’ and ‘name your constituency’. I have commented on the result at the end of the article.*

Muslims need to understand the essence of the state they live in and the treaty they signed up to abide by. And yet, we have quite literally signed away our lives without reading the small print. We need to understand this term called “democracy” – we are living in a time when we are bombarded with media garbage, our minds are clouded with useless information. One might think they have got the hang of it: “left-wing”, “right-wing”, “far right and far left”; watching Newsnight every night; reading the broadsheet, and repeating the political tongue-twisters without getting twisted. The only thing we need to know about today’s politics and the only thing you need to take away from this article is that democracy is a number game.

Muslims in the West are too reactive, we wait for policies and change to happen then we cry and fight. Recently, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill is in its third reading (whatever that means) and now we are forwarding messages on whatsapp relentlessly to make amends. In France, they are in the process of forcing children not to have the option of halāl food at school, if they’re not taking them away from their parents completely. How did it get to this stage? We need to be proactive!

Let us talk about what I believe are real political facts that the media and schools will never teach you, only here on Islam21c:

It does not matter who you vote for

Call it a democracy or a ‘multi-dictatorship’, it really does not matter who is in power, what matters is who your local MP is. Many Muslims think they need one of ‘their own’, in fact this can often be counter-productive. There are plenty of unfortunate examples of MPs from a Muslim background whose behaviour and policies have made things far worse for the Muslim community as a whole. It is also not uncommon for the Muslim MP’s own community to engage in slander such as “she sold us out…” or “he sold his religion…”.

Party policies, economic policies, and so forth, arguably have no bearing; yellow, red, blue have no bearing – politicians and their parties can promise what they like but, true to democracy, once in power they can do what they like during their term. The Iraq war, for example, was going to happen no matter which party was in charge; when an agenda needs to be accomplished any party can execute it in a multi-dictatorship.

A blank vote counts = a spoilt vote

Yes, precisely, voting is vital;[3] it is an important right your treaty gave you as a citizen to this country. Use it. My London borough is divided into two (more about this below). It has two candidates who are both aligned with Friends of Israel – this sort of information is not easily found, but scrolling through their Facebook and twitter feed reveals all. Do I feel they will represent me?

To vote blank, return it blank: draw a picture of the sun, scribble, write a poem, if you feel no one represent you make it clear by voting blank – a blank votes counts and a no-show is a no-vote.

Your constituency is not your borough, district, or your city council

This is an important piece of information everyone must understand. Your parents or siblings living a few streets down may not have the same MP as you. The country is divided in various ways; start to know the people in your constituency.[4]

Leicester for example is divided into three: Leicester East, Leicester West and Leicester South. The London borough of Croydon is spilt into Croydon Central, North and South; and the borough of Newham is divided into East Ham and West Ham.

It is a number game

Presently there are 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK. Let us say there was a Muslim in each constituency who knew nine more people within their own borders, and we all emailed our local MP about issue ‘x’ – that is 6,500 emails to the MPs in the UK. During the next Commons debate at Westminster they would be compelled to discuss issue ‘x’.

To reiterate, this article is not about who to vote for – this is not important in my opinion – but this is how Muslims can unite in a small way that will make a difference to their lives as citizens of the United Kingdom. You signed up for it. You travel to Ḥajj and Umrah in “her Majesty’s name”. Let us stop making a fuss and put some work into making a difference. Even David Cameron has encouraged this idea of a Big Society. If you are not bothered and expect you can just go to the Masjid on Fridays and send your children to Madrasa every weekend, quite honestly this country might not be for you – forwarding a message does not “pass the buck”, you as a Muslim are responsible for your community and you will be accountable for it just like you will called to account on your salāh.

It is time to put a stop to Muslim-bashing from politicians and the media, it is time to put a stop to our youths spending their zeal and energy in the wrong paths set by khatīr.[5] Put that energy behind the keyboard not a trigger. We may not have the budget to jet off our MP to lavish 5-star hotels in Palestine (if there is one) but we have numbers.

It is narrated by Thawbān that the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) said,

“The people will soon summon one another to attack you in the same way as people invite others to share their dish. Someone asked: ‘Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?’ He replied: ‘No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allāh will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and place enervation into your hearts.’ Someone asked: ‘What is wahn (enervation)?’ The Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) replied: ‘Love of the world and dislike of death.’”

There are many Muslims and a large percentage of us are inactive, while others possess a strong ideology as to why we should not involve ourselves in politics. But, if you are one of those who will visit http://www.theyworkforyou.com and find the name of your MP and your constituency, please get in touch at enquiries@islam21c.com. I hope to write a series of articles once we have a strong team of brothers and sisters in each of the 650 constituencies, I am not sure if we have any Muslims in Orkney and Shetland or Aberconwy. Those not looking for fame or glory but working incognito within the community to help the youths and elders, understand the effect of a vote, or a blank vote and imperatively lobbying.

Sending someone a route on Facebook to go to Iraq and Syria via Turkey will land you a seven years prison sentence.[7] But uniting with your fellow brothers and sisters within your constituency to email your local MP about an agenda that might actually make a difference in the law of this land should be completely legal. And we must be wary of the khatīr among and around us who try to put all good things to an end. Remember Legoland?